DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
BUG
Docket No: 9493-12
5 February 2013
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To Secretary of the Navy
Sub): ral
Ref: fa) Tile: 10 U.S.€. 1552
Encl: (1) DD Form 149 dtd 24 May 12 w/attachments
(2) HOMC MMER/PERB memo dtd 7 Sep 12
(3) Subject’s naval record
1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject,
hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed written
application, enclosure (1), with this Board requesting, in
effect, that his naval record be corrected by modifying the
fitness report for 1 June to 7 October 2011 (copy at Tab A), to
make it “not observed,” or removing the report.
2. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Dixit, Pfeiffer and
Zsalman, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and
injustice on 31 January 2013, and pursuant to its regulations,
determined that the corrective action indicated below should be
taken on the available evidence of record. Documentary material
considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval
records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.
3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record
pertaining to Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice,
finds as follows:
a. Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all
administrative remedies which were available under existing law
and regulations within the Department of the Navy.
b. Enclosure (1) was filed in a timely manner.
c. Petitioner contends that the fitness report in question
should have been “not observed,” as there was not enough
observation time. As proof, he provided his chronological
record and documentation of his having been sent TAD (temporary
additional duty) for two weeks. He considers the report in
question the worst of his career.
d. The contested report has marks of “B” (second lowest of
seven possible) and “Cc” (third lowest), and section K.3
(reviewing officer (RO) “Comparative Assessment”) is marked
third lowest of eight possible marks. The narrative provided by
both the reporting senior (RS) and RO is fully favorable and
substantive.
e. Enclosure (2), the report of the Headquarters Marine
Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board in Petitioner's
case, stated that his request was denied because the comments of
the RS and RO “clearly speak to the reporting officials’
substantial and meaningful observations.”
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and
notwithstanding enclosure (2), the Board finds an injustice
warranting removal of the contested report. In light of the
information Petitioner has provided, the Board seriously
questions that the reporting officials had adequate opportunity
to observe his performance. However, the Board is reluctant to
change the report to “not observed” over the signatures of the
reporting officials who intended for the report to be observed.
In view of the above, the Board recommends the following
corrective action.
RECOMMENDATION :
a. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by
removing the following fitness report and related material:
Period of Rept
Date of Rept Reporting Senior From To
B Oct. £1 1 gun, LL 7 Oct Ll
b. That there be inserted in his naval record a memorandum
in place of the removed report, containing appropriate
identifying data concerning the report; that such memorandum
state that the report has been removed by order of the Secretary
of the Navy in accordance with the provisions of Federal law and
may not be made available to selection boards and other
reviewing authorities; and that such boards may not conjecture
or draw any inference as to the nature of the report.
c. That the magnetic tape maintained by HQMC be corrected
accordingly.
d. That any material or entries inconsistent with or
relating to the Board’s recommendation be corrected, removed or
completely expunged from Petitioner's record and that no such
entries be added to the record in the future.
e. That any material directed to be removed from
Petitioner’s naval record be returned to the Board, together
with a copy of this Report of Proceedings, for retention ina
confidential file maintained for such purpose, with no cross
reference being made a part of Petitioner’s naval record.
4. It is certified that a quorum was present at the Board’s
review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and
complete record of the Board’s proceedings in the above entitled
matter.
Ape Fin Var f.
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN JONATHAN S. RUSKIN
Recorder Acting Recorder
5. The foregoing report of the Board is submitted for your
review and action.
open
W. DEAN PF
Reviewed and approved: 2 8/12 ‘
T tpn wilh tte Bourd’s pecturindabrn.
(Met oor —
ROBERT L. WOODS
Assistant General Counsel
(Manpower and Reserve Affairs)
1000 Navy Pentagon, Am 40548
Washington, DC 20350-1000
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09822-10
The PERB took this action because Petitioner “submitted compelling evidence to indicate that the RO’s evaluation may have been biased and possibly influenced by factors other than the petitioner’s performance.” The PERB denied Petitioner’s request to remove the entire report, because it found the RS had provided him performance counseling, the RS's marks and comments did not indicate any bias or unfairness, and Petitioner had “failed to sufficiently establish his claim that the RS’ part of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5246 14
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 §. The third sighting officer verified that Petitioner “did not complete a PFT IAW [in accordance with} the Physical Fitness Program.” d. In support of his application, Petitioner submitted a statement dated 12 December 2013 from the RO, recommending “in the strongest terms” that the contested fitness report be removed. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing the following fitness report and related...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12759-09
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed written application, enclosure (1), with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected by . d. Petitioner contends that the contested fitness report violates the applicable fitness report order, Marine Corps Order P1610.7F, in that it reflects “faint praise”; the marks reflect marginal performance without any corroboration in the narrative; the last two...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07967-02
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed written application, enclosure applicable naval record be corrected by removing his fitness report for 1 October 2000 to 3 1 July 2001, a copy of which is at Tab A to enclosure (1). fifth highest, in F.3 ( “setting the ” the reviewing officer ” the g. Petitioner provided a supporting letter dated 30 April 2002 (Tab E to enclosure (1)) from the RS who submitted the contested transfer fitness...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06123-02
Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) has directed that the report for 12 July 1997 to 31 July 1998 be modified by removing the “Exercises acceptable judgment and following from the reporting senior (RS) comments: leadership.” Petitioner further requested removal of his failure of selection before the Fiscal Year (FY) 2003 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, so that he will be considered by the selection board next convened to consider officers of his...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08495-07
He may submit to HQMC (NMPR-2) a request for remedial consideration for promotion on the basis of the PERB action and the further action recommended by this Board, if it is approved.2. In enclosure (3) , Petitioner maintains that the RO’s letter fully justifies removing the report for 2 March to 30 June 2003.CONCLUSION:Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and notwithstanding enclosure (2), the Board finds an injustice warranting complete removal of the report for 2...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 03672-98
He stated that since his fitness reports as a lieutenant and captain were sufficiently strong to allow him to have been promoted to major, and since his major reports are “far more competitive, ”the probability of promotion to lieutenant colonel “would be high.” Regarding his fitness report for 15 November 1985 to 28 February 1986, he stated that although it is an “annual” report, it covers only three months, during which the actual observation was only four to six calendar days. In their...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08103-10
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 BUG Docket No: 8103-10 14 September 2010 Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records Secretary of the Navy (a} Tile LO U.S.c. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed written application, enclosure (1), with this Board requesting, in effect, that the fitness report for 1 November 2007 to 15 September 2008 (copy at Tab A) be modified...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2811 14
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed written application, enclosure (1), with this Board requesting, in effect, that his naval record be corrected by removing the fitness report for 1 April to 16 May 2012 (copy at Tab A). The PERB found it was “unfortunate, but not likely, that [Petitioner’s] marital problems started only 19 days after he reported to DI school on 1 April 2012 when his wife filed divorce papers...” MAJORITY...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05725-08
c. Petitioner contends the contested fitness report, in which she received the lowest marks of her 17-year career, was the result of bias against her on the part of the reporting senior (RS) “and may have even been gender related.” She asserts the RS never explained to her why he had marked her so low, when his comments would appear to support higher marks. e. Petitioner provided supporting statements from a chief warrant officer, a lieutenant colonel and a gunnery sergeant (enclosures (2)...